shelly_script_put_code

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With only destructiveHint:true in annotations, the description carries the burden and delivers real behavioral context: confirm-gating for arbitrary code, append=false replacing the body, automatic ≤1 KB chunking, and audit logging. This tells the agent the operation is destructive, how it is chunked, and that it is recorded.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core action and the confirm warning, then covers append, chunking, and audit in minimal, zero-waste sentences. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the destructive/confirm/chunking behavior is well covered for a mutation tool. The only shortfall is the unexplained id/device parameters, which is minor but not fully closed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains append (false replaces, true appends) and confirm (needed for arbitrary code) meaningfully. But id, device, and code — including the required ones — are never clarified, leaving a real gap against 5 undocumented parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Upload code into a script') with a distinct scope note ('chunked') that separates it from shelly_script_get_code and shelly_script_eval. An agent can identify it as the write counterpart to the read/eval script tools without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear conditional: arbitrary code requires confirm:true, and append selects replace vs append behavior. However, it never names an alternative sibling (e.g. shelly_script_eval or shelly_script_create) or states when this tool is preferred over them, so routing guidance is context but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.